ArticleScientific reports2025
A machine learning approach to identify patients at risk for long-term consequences after pulmonary embolism.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical research on pulmonary hypertension from a 2025 perspective: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- An explainable ensemble learning-based auxiliary diagnosis system for cerebral small vessel disease.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) can result in long-term sequelae, such as post-PE syndrome, including persistent dyspnea and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Existing prediction tools for severe post-PE complications lack sensitivity and specificity. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model to identify patients at risk for long-term consequences after PE. Using data from the RIETE registry, the largest prospective international PE registry, we developed supervised machine learning models to identify patients at increased risk of CTEPH and post-PE syndrome. Our approach involved data preprocessing, model training via random forest algorithm, and validation through Monte-Carlo cross-validation. The performance of the CTEPH prediction model was benchmarked against an existing score. Of the 57,981 PE patients in the RIETE registry, 5,217 were eligible for inclusion. Median age was 68 years, with 50.6% men. Machine learning was based on 111 predictor variables, with 171 patients (3.3%) developing CTEPH. The CTEPH model demonstrated good performance with an AUC of 0.74 (95%CI: 0.73-0.75), significantly outperforming the existing CTEPH prediction score (0.57; 0.54-0.61). Additionally, 1,310 (25.1%) patients were defined as having post-PE syndrome six months after index PE. The post-PE syndrome model showed poorer performance with an AUC of 0.62 (0.61-0.62). Key predictor variables across both models included chest pain at presentation, PE location, troponin, side of clot, and dyspnea at presentation. Machine learning models show promise in predicting CTEPH but are less effective for post-PE syndrome. Future refinement, including integrating imaging data, is necessary to improve predictive performance and clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.